Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

PRAVAL PRATAP SINGH versus STATE OF UP THRU' M.D. UP SAHKARI GRAM VIKAS BANK LTD & OTH

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Praval Pratap Singh v. State Of Up Thru' M.D. Up Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd & Oth - WRIT - A No. 727 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 135 (10 January 2005)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

COURT NO.34

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 727 of 2005

Praval Pratap Singh          .......... Petitioner

Versus

State of U.P. & Ors.     ............     Respondents

Hon'ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J.

This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order of punishment dated 15.07.2004 by which the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed by a non-speaking order and further quashing the adverse entry and release the payment of Rs. 45,000/- and other benefits to the petitioner.

The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the petitioner was put under suspension vide order dated 04.03.2003 and a charge sheet was served upon him on 31.07.2003 containing seven charges. The enquiry was held and the charges no. 1, 2 and 5 were proved, some of them partly. Vide order dated 04.12.2003, the order of punishment was passed recording censure entry and for not making any payment  to the petitioner for the period of suspension other than the subsistence allowance already paid to him. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed the appeal which has been dismissed and the petitioner had been communicated the said dismissal order vide letter dated 15.07.2004. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a review application dated 20.09.2004 and as the same has not yet been disposed of, this writ petition has been filed.

It is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that the review application is not being disposed of by the respondent-authorities against the order of dismissal of the appeal. The petitioner has not filed the order passed by the Appellate Authority nor the date has been mentioned and nor the learned counsel is in a position to disclose whether the petitioner had ever applied for the copy of the order passed by the Appellate Authority. He is also not in a position to point out under what provisions of law, a review application could be filed. In spite of our repeated suggestions the learned counsel for the petitioner is not willing to understand that the letter dated 15.07.2004 is not an order passed by the Appellate Authority but is only a letter informing him of the dismissal of his appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner is also not in a position to explain as how the review could be entertained in absence of any statutory provisions and too only on the ground that the petitioner was unnecessarily harassed by the department and his appeal had been dismissed by a non-speaking order.

Be that as it may, the charges on which the petitioner has been punished are very serious in nature. The charge of granting the loan to the non-existing person fraudulently had been proved. However, as the amount had already been deposited by the employees involved in this fraud, the authority had taken a lenient view while imposing the punishment. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out that the enquiry has been conducted in violation of the statutory provisions or in violation of the principles of natural justice. The power of judicial review is against the procedure in making the decision and not against the decision itself. The writ Court cannot sit in appeal against such an order and there is no occasion for us to entertain the petition when the order passed by the Appellate Authority  has not been placed on the record and the learned counsel for the petitioner is not willing to understand that there had been an independent order passed by the Appellate Authority and what has been filed by him was only a letter of communication of the dismissal of the appeal.

In view of the above, we do not find any substance in the petition. It is accordingly dismissed.

10.01.2005

AHA


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.